Basic road racing questions

Be sure to read the doping forum to learn of the most essential elements to qualifying and finsihing a stage race of 21 days.

Trauma medication is more critical than equipment or tactics.

While many factors determine successes at the tour (stage wins, points winner, KOM, young rider and GC winner) illegal and legal doping are the most important.

A sudy of cycling is wholly inadequate without studying the 100 year doping history of our great sport---such as it is presented.

Amateur racing is where the true talent and fun can be found. It's the real deal. (hobby not business)

The TDF is WWF, phony, fake and medically toxic.

Do not allow advertisers shape your understanding of cycling. They tend to fib a lot.

markwill said:

Well, I didn't want to polute this forum with my terrible newbie-like questions so I posted in the "Bike Cafe" forum - to no avail (161 readers of the posting but no reponses yet). So, let me try here...

Since last year (when I bought my first road bike) I can't get enough of both participating in cycling (no races) and watching pro cycling. I have a couple of questions about the latter, which I can't find anywhere.

It seems that the last stage of any event (Tour, Giro, etc) is not particularly competitive - something of a victory lap for the leader at the start of the day. I know there have been exceptions (todays Dauphiné Libéré seemed like one example) but most I have seen so far have this occur. Why do the organizers factor in such stages? How often do flat out, down-to-the-wire races occur?

I know that groups of cyclists are given the same time (aside from 1st place bonuses on each stage). But when is a group actually two groups? For example, if there is a gap of 1 second between riders I assume they are given the same time. What about 3 seconds? Or 10? Or 15? What defines when groups are split into seperate times?

For the record, I am beside myself waiting for The Tour and I was very disappointed that the Dauphiné Libéré wasn't covered by OLN through the week.

Thanks.

Mark

Um, thanks - anyone have any answers to my questions?

Mark

Flyer said:

Be sure to read the doping forum to learn of the most essential elements to qualifying and finsihing a stage race of 21 days.

Trauma medication is more critical than equipment or tactics.

While many factors determine successes at the tour (stage wins, points winner, KOM, young rider and GC winner) illegal and legal doping are the most important.

A sudy of cycling is wholly inadequate without studying the 100 year doping history of our great sport---such as it is presented.

Amateur racing is where the true talent and fun can be found. It's the real deal. (hobby not business)

The TDF is WWF, phony, fake and medically toxic.

Do not allow advertisers shape your understanding of cycling. They tend to fib a lot.

markwill said:

Well, I didn't want to polute this forum with my terrible newbie-like questions so I posted in the "Bike Cafe" forum - to no avail (161 readers of the posting but no reponses yet). So, let me try here...

I'm only a few years ahead of you in viewing experience, but as no one else has answered...

markwill said:

It seems that the last stage of any event (Tour, Giro, etc) is not particularly competitive - something of a victory lap for the leader at the start of the day. I know there have been exceptions (todays Dauphiné Libéré seemed like one example) but most I have seen so far have this occur. Why do the organizers factor in such stages? How often do flat out, down-to-the-wire races occur?

I don't know of a pattern, other than the longer the stage race, the more likely it is - in a 3-day race, there is no time for the luxury of such a stage.

However, the last stage is often ceremonial just for the general classification riders; the sprinters still get a full workout at the end! For example, the TdF ends on the Champs Elysses, and while the ride in to Paris is ceremonial, including champagne, the final sprint is hot and heavy and is in fact considered a particularly prestigious victory.

markwill said:

I know that groups of cyclists are given the same time (aside from 1st place bonuses on each stage). But when is a group actually two groups? For example, if there is a gap of 1 second between riders I assume they are given the same time. What about 3 seconds? Or 10? Or 15? What defines when groups are split into seperate times?

It is ultimately up to the judgment of the race officials as to whether a gap occurred. A one second gap is sufficient to have separate times assigned. One second is not trivial; at 50 km/hr that gap is 14 meters.

I forgot to mention that sometimes the major tours conclude with an individual time trial, which of course is fully competitive. Two that come to mind are (recently) when Roberto Heras lost the Vuelta in 2002 and (longer ago) in the 1989 TdF when Greg Lemond overcame a 50 second deficit to Laurent Fignon to win on the Champs Elysses by 8 seconds, I believe the closest TdF finish.

I forgot the mention that in addition to medical supervision and advantages/disadvanges found there, race fixing by promoters and teams can alter the podium positions. Certainly fixing can and is performed at the amateur level too---but the incentive to fix is greatest when prizes are on the line.

Because the primary objective of Grand Tours is to maximize advertising revenue, certain outcomes must be planned for.

for example: The 1998 TDF was on the verge of massive rider abandonment because the police could smell blood. Customs agents already caught Festina red handed, then the Police caught TVM and were eager for more surprise searches. The riders protested claiming harassement until a truce was formed.

The Promoter was going to lose millions unless the 'show must go on'. The police backed off, Jalabert and Zulle quit, the show went on and Pantani attacked way early on a raing day and was able to stay away. His tactic normally would have backfired if all riders & teams were present and for some mechanical and other unluck breaks for the otehr contenders.

The 1984 Giro is another race that Laurent Fignon believes was fixed in order to allow Francesco Moser to win.

The 1989 TDF was bizarre in that Pedro Delgado was the strongest man in the race, but he arrived minutes late for the prologue TT causing Lemond & Fignon to force him to chase all Tour.

Why was he late? The defending champ? btw: was on steroid masking drugs in 1988 but allowed to keep his yellow jersey anyway. Hmmmmmm?

JRMDC said:

I forgot to mention that sometimes the major tours conclude with an individual time trial, which of course is fully competitive. Two that come to mind are (recently) when Roberto Heras lost the Vuelta in 2002 and (longer ago) in the 1989 TdF when Greg Lemond overcame a 50 second deficit to Laurent Fignon to win on the Champs Elysses by 8 seconds, I believe the closest TdF finish.

JRMDC said:

I forgot to mention that sometimes the major tours conclude with an individual time trial, which of course is fully competitive. Two that come to mind are (recently) when Roberto Heras lost the Vuelta in 2002 and (longer ago) in the 1989 TdF when Greg Lemond overcame a 50 second deficit to Laurent Fignon to win on the Champs Elysses by 8 seconds, I believe the closest TdF finish.

To add just a note, as far as I know there is no formal written rule that says that you are not allowed to try to press and overtake the GC leader on the last stage in the TDF. It is just tradition and etiquette no to do so.
To do so would most likely bring scorn.

Also the last stage is ususally flat and not a whole lot of time can be made up on a leader (vs a time trial or mountain stage where people can lose almost an hour if they have a bad day). If he has a 5 sec lead, it might be possible but barring a crash or a mechanicle (which most people would wait for the leader unless he is unable to continue) it would not be possible to get back more time than that. That is why the final stage of some of the grand tours is more of a celebration stage than a competetive stage, for the GC guys anyway, like someone else said the sprinters still race for real.

The last stage of the Tour de France (and the Giro and Vuelta) is always flat. If a GC contender tried to attack they would just get run down by the peloton. Same is true for breakaways, the sprinters teams want their men to get that last stage victory. All in all attacking is completely pointless (and perhaps against the etiquette) and so the peloton cruises into Paris and then the sprinters nail it for first place.

This years Dauphine Libere had a cat 3 climb in the finishing circuit and this years Tour de Suisse has three HC climbs on the last day, and are much more interesting because of it.

Cyclist in a bunch are all given the same time to stop 100 people sprinting for the line and the organisers ending up with a huge pile of bikes and bodies just before the finish line. If there is clear air (about one or two bicycle lengths) between one bunch and the next then a time gap is given. Otherwise they all get the same time. Safety first.

markwill said:

Well, I didn't want to polute this forum with my terrible newbie-like questions so I posted in the "Bike Cafe" forum - to no avail (161 readers of the posting but no reponses yet). So, let me try here...

Since last year (when I bought my first road bike) I can't get enough of both participating in cycling (no races) and watching pro cycling. I have a couple of questions about the latter, which I can't find anywhere.

It seems that the last stage of any event (Tour, Giro, etc) is not particularly competitive - something of a victory lap for the leader at the start of the day. I know there have been exceptions (todays Dauphiné Libéré seemed like one example) but most I have seen so far have this occur. Why do the organizers factor in such stages? How often do flat out, down-to-the-wire races occur?

I know that groups of cyclists are given the same time (aside from 1st place bonuses on each stage). But when is a group actually two groups? For example, if there is a gap of 1 second between riders I assume they are given the same time. What about 3 seconds? Or 10? Or 15? What defines when groups are split into seperate times?

For the record, I am beside myself waiting for The Tour and I was very disappointed that the Dauphiné Libéré wasn't covered by OLN through the week.

Thanks.

Mark

I hope I can answer in a little less sarcastic or jaded or some other skewed view.

The last stage of large events (Giro, Tour, Vuelta) is *normally* a flat stage meant for the overall leader (and usually best climber and young rider) to show off their jerseys. In the meantime, if the sprinters were competitive during the whole race, their jersey may be up for grabs. The organizers try to separate the Sprint jersey decider since it could be decided on the last day. So the organizers have the best of everything - parade for some of the overall victors and a nail-biting finish for the sprinters.

Sometimes (and not being all knowing I don't know why) the organizers throw a wrench into things and put a TT as the last stage. Although these TT's usually make for a very close overall race, it seems like the general preference is to make this overall-deciding TT the day before the finish. I think the fans like to see (in the Tour for example) the Yellow jersey, led by his team, fly onto the Champs Elysee.

Officials group racers together when they finish. Otherwise there would be a dangerous sprint-within-the-peloton at every finish. However, if there are a couple bike lengths between one part of the peloton and another, they can rule the second group as "not part of the first group". This is somewhat controvertial since such a gap can be opened up in the last 20 meters of a race - usually they do this on mountain stages where they want racers to race all the way to the line. Last year, Lance lost 15 seconds in Paris because he and his team backed off at the finish.

Shorter stage races do not have the luxury of holding a "parade" stage to show off the overall victor. So instead they make their race more competitive (and therefore more people will follow it) by having decisive last stages. This way the outcome of the race is not known until the finish of the last stage.

The cynics do have their point though. Bernard Hinault, while in yellow, won the final stage in Paris I believe twice, once in company with the second overall Joop Zoeltemelk and once in a breakaway group. He was not the "best" sprinter but definitely ruled the peloton with an iron fist - although the promoter may not have had anything to do with it, the teams definitely know what's best for them. The days where the unwritten rules are not followed make for more boring pictures - Jeff Pierce soloing to victory, although spectacular, is no where near as enticing as a 5-shot sequence of sprinters headbutting each other at the line.

Like you, I'm looking forward to this year's Tour, a race I've been following since I was a kid 22 years ago.

carpediemracing said:

I hope I can answer in a little less sarcastic or jaded or some other skewed view.

The last stage of large events (Giro, Tour, Vuelta) is *normally* a flat stage meant for the overall leader (and usually best climber and young rider) to show off their jerseys. In the meantime, if the sprinters were competitive during the whole race, their jersey may be up for grabs. The organizers try to separate the Sprint jersey decider since it could be decided on the last day. So the organizers have the best of everything - parade for some of the overall victors and a nail-biting finish for the sprinters.

Sometimes (and not being all knowing I don't know why) the organizers throw a wrench into things and put a TT as the last stage. Although these TT's usually make for a very close overall race, it seems like the general preference is to make this overall-deciding TT the day before the finish. I think the fans like to see (in the Tour for example) the Yellow jersey, led by his team, fly onto the Champs Elysee.

Officials group racers together when they finish. Otherwise there would be a dangerous sprint-within-the-peloton at every finish. However, if there are a couple bike lengths between one part of the peloton and another, they can rule the second group as "not part of the first group". This is somewhat controvertial since such a gap can be opened up in the last 20 meters of a race - usually they do this on mountain stages where they want racers to race all the way to the line. Last year, Lance lost 15 seconds in Paris because he and his team backed off at the finish.

Shorter stage races do not have the luxury of holding a "parade" stage to show off the overall victor. So instead they make their race more competitive (and therefore more people will follow it) by having decisive last stages. This way the outcome of the race is not known until the finish of the last stage.

The cynics do have their point though. Bernard Hinault, while in yellow, won the final stage in Paris I believe twice, once in company with the second overall Joop Zoeltemelk and once in a breakaway group. He was not the "best" sprinter but definitely ruled the peloton with an iron fist - although the promoter may not have had anything to do with it, the teams definitely know what's best for them. The days where the unwritten rules are not followed make for more boring pictures - Jeff Pierce soloing to victory, although spectacular, is no where near as enticing as a 5-shot sequence of sprinters headbutting each other at the line.

Like you, I'm looking forward to this year's Tour, a race I've been following since I was a kid 22 years ago.

Here is an unlikely scenario for you. Say that Lance Amstrong is in the yellow jersey and is taking his ceremonial ride into Paris in the TDF. A freak accident occurs and he injured and is unable to finish the race. What happens now.
I don't the the answer.

markwill said:

It seems that the last stage of any event (Tour, Giro, etc) is not particularly competitive - something of a victory lap for the leader at the start of the day. I know there have been exceptions (todays Dauphiné Libéré seemed like one example) but most I have seen so far have this occur. Why do the organizers factor in such stages? How often do flat out, down-to-the-wire races occur?

The reason that they don't races the last stage of a grand tour is because in
the tradition of the sport in the old days, riders competed all year round and
unless there was a realistic chance of winning the race by people placed in
2nd, 3rd or 4th, they did not race the last stage.
If there was a chance of changing the overall result they would race.
But it is usually a formality that the final positions on the penultimate day
of a tour will be the final positions at the end of a tour.

jhuskey said:

Here is an unlikely scenario for you. Say that Lance Amstrong is in the yellow jersey and is taking his ceremonial ride into Paris in the TDF. A freak accident occurs and he injured and is unable to finish the race. What happens now.
I don't the the answer.

that's part of the suspense of the last day, although honestly I think he'd have to be virtually dead before the peloton would think about leaving him behind. often the Yellow Jersey will flat or need a bike change on the last day and the peloton will, if not wait, at least not attack. pros for the most part seem to try and stick together - after all, they race against each other for the whole year. burning bridges just one day may curtail your career for a long time.

it is very different from F1 for example where it's not unusual for the race to be lost on the last lap due to an accident of some sort even though the second place person is totally out of contention.

carpediemracing said:

that's part of the suspense of the last day, although honestly I think he'd have to be virtually dead before the peloton would think about leaving him behind. often the Yellow Jersey will flat or need a bike change on the last day and the peloton will, if not wait, at least not attack. pros for the most part seem to try and stick together - after all, they race against each other for the whole year. burning bridges just one day may curtail your career for a long time.

it is very different from F1 for example where it's not unusual for the race to be lost on the last lap due to an accident of some sort even though the second place person is totally out of contention.

I understand the ettiquette I just wonder what would actually happen under such a circumstance. Woulds he be wheeled across in a wheel chair?

jhuskey said:

I understand the ettiquette I just wonder what would actually happen under such a circumstance. Woulds he be wheeled across in a wheel chair?

I imagine not although that would be one for the rule books - you finish when your front wheel crosses the finish line plane - would he carry his front wheel on his lap? lol. anyway.. In the past when the leader has struggled (say he crashed) but still insists on fighting, his team may literally push him along while he sits on his bike (this happened to I-forget-who in a mountain stage way back, but the leader dropped out afterwards). But I imagine that if the Yellow Jersey really took himself out, after everyone collectively agrees that he's out, the race will continue. If he stops to pee or something that's a different story.

I think we need more young riders who don't take the etiquettes to seriously, as well as the teamplay. When more attacks are made the race is more interesting, and stages in the big Rounds, like TDF, Vuelta and Giro, could look like the classic races where riders come at the finish alone or in small groups, instead of the attackers, and one peloton with the rest. There is not much competition between the riders in the peloton which makes it boring some times. Only 20 riders compete and the rest just look from the peloton if everything is allright with their captain and than they drive together to the finish.

Go Voigt, Go Dekker, Go Durand!!!!

protour said:

I think we need more young riders who don't take the etiquettes to seriously, as well as the teamplay. When more attacks are made the race is more interesting, and stages in the big Rounds, like TDF, Vuelta and Giro, could look like the classic races where riders come at the finish alone or in small groups, instead of the attackers, and one peloton with the rest. There is not much competition between the riders in the peloton which makes it boring some times. Only 20 riders compete and the rest just look from the peloton if everything is allright with their captain and than they drive together to the finish.

Go Voigt, Go Dekker, Go Durand!!!!

I agree, in that we need more riders like Dekker, Voigt, and Durand to make the race interesting. But I can see why the pros don't go on suicide breaks with very little chance of winning. Remember for these guys riding a bike and winning races is their job, and if you can do you job easier, why not.

I think that the etiquette of the last stage being a parade stage (if it is a flat group stage) is part of any of the tours. So if that changed, I think it would take something away from the grand tours. I also feel that if the leader has a minor issue, (flat, pee break, minor crash) the peleton should wait.

Any other race, etiquette be dammed.